Weird, no news about Al Qaeda holding American hostage

[jimnyc]

The leader of Al Qaeda, Zawahri, has stated they are holding an American captive in Pakistan. Yep, the same place that Awlaki was chillin before he was killed by predator drones. But still no posts here. If it's an American terrorist getting killed, it gets lots of attention and even "support" for the terrorist, or at least his rights. But an American being held captive by Al Qaeda doesn't garner much interest. And it's not just here, even on the major news channels. Awlaki got non-stop attention, while this story is almost a middle of the paper story, if it gets attention at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/qaedas-zawahri-says-group-kidnapped-american-pakistan-210137023.html

[Dilloduck]

What the media thinks should be important to us changes quickly.

[Noir]

I memo a story came out not too long about (last year some time) when somali Pirates held some Brits on a yacht hostage for months, and the media only reported on it after they were freed.

Even though they'd known about it during the situation, but it was decided by the Home Office (government) that it would be better for the hostages if there was minimal coverage, and so all media made a voluntary blackout of reporting it. The minister was on the news afterwards saying each case is different and with some its better to be public, and others to keep private.

Something similar may be happening here, thus its at least being kept off the mainstream, though obviously i don't know.

[fj1200]

"Dog Bites Man" = Not news.

Awlaki was taken out in Yemen iirc.

[jimnyc]

"Dog Bites Man" = Not news.

Awlaki was taken out in Yemen iirc.

Yeah, my bad, I had the attack from the other day on my mind, hence Pakistan. But gotta wonder, Pakistan gets pissed at the US and a few days later Al Qaeda grabs an American. The same Pakistan where Bin Laden was. I don't trust them, nor Yemen for that fact. I think both countries would gladly pay and/or hide terrorists.

[fj1200]

I think both countries would gladly pay and/or hide terrorists.

But why give us drone rights? It doesn't make sense to me unless they either want to take out the same terror groups we want to or they want to take out any terror groups that are threatening to their central government.

[Kathianne]

I memo a story came out not too long about (last year some time) when somali Pirates held some Brits on a yacht hostage for months, and the media only reported on it after they were freed.

Even though they'd known about it during the situation, but it was decided by the Home Office (government) that it would be better for the hostages if there was minimal coverage, and so all media made a voluntary blackout of reporting it. The minister was on the news afterwards saying each case is different and with some its better to be public, and others to keep private.

Something similar may be happening here, thus its at least being kept off the mainstream, though obviously i don't know.

Pretty cool, I was thinking like your home office. ;)

I also wonder how a 70 year old guy is doing? I do know that with that age, the chances of a deal they are looking for are none too good.

[jimnyc]

But why give us drone rights? It doesn't make sense to me unless they either want to take out the same terror groups we want to or they want to take out any terror groups that are threatening to their central government.

I'm not so sure about what rights either of them have given us, as pretty much every attack by a drone has been condemned or become a hot topic for their governments. Quite a few of the attacks have been condemned by the countries, not that its stopped us anyway.

But it's even worse if they want to help get rid of SOME terror groups who they feel are a threat to them but assist others that might help them.

[fj1200]

I'm not so sure about what rights either of them have given us, as pretty much every attack by a drone has been condemned or become a hot topic for their governments.

In line with the thread, I think we hear of very few of the drone strikes; they only make the news if something goes wrong or takes out any/too many civies. I'm pretty sure we have their complete blessing.

[jimnyc]

In line with the thread, I think we hear of very few of the drone strikes; they only make the news if something goes wrong or takes out any/too many civies. I'm pretty sure we have their complete blessing.

I read an article a short while ago that stated it best, in regards to Pakistan at least - "they give tacit approval while publicly condemning the attacks". Which is true. They don't do anything to stop any of them that I am aware of, but then I guess they appease the wacko public by condemning the attacks. Supposedly there is an agreement, but the Pakistan government denies it.

[fj1200]

OK, maybe complete blessing overstated a touch. :salute: Do they "publicly condemn" all of the attacks?

[jimnyc]

OK, maybe complete blessing overstated a touch. :salute: Do they "publicly condemn" all of the attacks?

Well, at least those that make the news. Like you stated though, I'm sure there are others that we never hear of.

[logroller]

Well, at least those that make the news. Like you stated though, I'm sure there are others that we never hear of.

Maybe its the difference between what we need/want to know and what the reporting agencies need/want us to know.

"Americans attacked in Pakistan" vs "Euro debt crisis" ... Which sells more ads this time of year?

[revelarts]

I memo a story came out not too long about (last year some time) when somali Pirates held some Brits on a yacht hostage for months, and the media only reported on it after they were freed.

Even though they'd known about it during the situation, but it was decided by the Home Office (government) that it would be better for the hostages if there was minimal coverage, and so all media made a voluntary blackout of reporting it. The minister was on the news afterwards saying each case is different and with some its better to be public, and others to keep private.

Something similar may be happening here, thus its at least being kept off the mainstream, though obviously i don't know.
hmm you mean the gov't controls the news ... never happens.

[Noir]

hmm you mean the gov't controls the news ... never happens.

Not forced, voluntary blackout.

I mean if you were at the head of a news corp and your gov. insider told you the details of a kidnap story, but that it was believed that minimal reporting would help the save the lives of the kidnapped, would you throw them and their 'controlling' the v's and publish, or show restraint?

[revelarts]

Not forced, voluntary blackout.

I mean if you were at the head of a news corp and your gov. insider told you the details of a kidnap story, but that it was believed that minimal reporting would help the save the lives of the kidnapped, would you throw them and their 'controlling' the v's and publish, or show restraint?
sure I'd show restraint as well.
I was using the people's horrible situation to make a related point that's overlooked to often, that there are other issues that are not sensitive to peoples live but the lives of the gov't status quo that get similar request... that are often honored voluntarily or sometimes by coercion maybe.